Biological Weapons Convention

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Noble Lords will wish to be aware of the outcome of the recent discussions in Geneva on the two subjects set for discussion by states party to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) in 2004. States party were mandated to discuss and promote common understanding and effective action on strengthening national and international efforts and existing mechanisms for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases affecting humans, animals and plants; and on promoting common understanding and effective action on the effects of cases of alleged use of biological or toxin weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease.
	On the concluding day of the meeting of states party to the BTWC, which took place from 6–10 December, there was agreement by consensus on a politically binding report where, inter alia, states party recognised the international aspect of these subjects and their relevance to the object and purpose of the BTWC, and agreed on the value of the following actions:
	supporting the existing networks of relevant international organisations for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases and acting to strengthen the World Health Organisation (WHO), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) programmes, within their mandates, for the continued development and strengthening of, and research into, rapid, effective and reliable activities for the surveillance, detection, diagnosis and combating of infectious diseases, including in cases of emergencies of international concern;
	improving, wherever possible, national and regional disease surveillance capabilities, and, if in a position to do so, assisting and encouraging, with the necessary agreement, other states party to do the same;
	working to improve communication on disease surveillance, including with the WHO, FAO and OIE, and among states party;
	continuing to develop their own national capacities for response, investigation and mitigation, in cooperation with the relevant international and regional organisations, and, if in a position to do so, assisting and encouraging, with the necessary agreement, other states party to do the same;
	the Sixth Review Conference in 2006 considering, inter alia, the further development of current procedures for the provision of assistance, by those in a position to do so, to states party in cases of alleged use of biological weapons or suspicious outbreaks of disease.
	The preceeding Meeting of Experts held in Geneva in July had prepared the way for this political decision making. At this earlier meeting, levels of attendance and participation were excellent with 87 states party contributing to international discussion and sharing of expertise on these subjects. For the United Kingdom experts from across Whitehall made nine presentations which were well received.
	That so many other states party sent experts from capitals and took an active part is an indication to us that delegations recognised both the importance of the two subjects and also the value of the work programme more generally in contributing to strengthening the BTWC. The success of the July meeting was reinforced at the December meeting of states party where states party in their national statements, welcomed the substantial exchange of information.
	The United Kingdom was grateful to the Chair, Mr Peter Goosen of South Africa, for the efforts he made to achieve consensus on a report that reflected the commonality of views and approaches that were demonstrated at the meetings. We believe that this has again demonstrated to the wider arms control community that the intersessional process has value.
	The continued success of this process is particularly important to the UK as we look ahead to 2005 and our own chairmanship of the meetings of states party. Ambassador John Freeman, UK Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament, was elected on the final day of this year's meeting as the chair. The subject for consideration will be "the content, promulgation, and adoption of codes of conduct for scientists". UK national preparations for this began in 2003. We have held a series of seminars with representatives of academia, NGOs and industry to seek their views and to assist in developing our ideas for next year. Ambassador Freeman wrote to states party on the final day of the 2004 meeting with some initial thoughts on the work ahead. The UK will continue to work co-operatively both nationally and internationally through 2005.
	I will keep the House informed of developments and outcomes in 2005.

EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: During his oral answer to the right honourable Member for Devizes (Mr Michael Ancram) on 14 December 2004 (Official Report, col. 1515), my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jack Straw) said the following.
	"Following an initiative by my predecessor, my right honourable friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), we now have a legally enforceable EU code of conduct on arms sales".
	We would like to clarify this statement. The Code of Conduct, as incorporated into the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, serves as binding statutory guidance to the Government in our assessment of application for strategic export licences under Section 9(5) of the Export Control Act. The Government is therefore required to have regard to the criteria set out in the Code when assessing such applications. Export licensing decisions may be subject to judicial review, including on the basis of failure to have proper regard to such criteria. However, the Code of Conduct is not per se directly legally enforceable before the UK or European courts.

Gypsy Sites and Planning

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am announcing today the publication for consultation of the new planning circular Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Sites. The new circular will replace DoE Circular 1/94 Gypsy Sites and Planning.
	The advice in the Circular covers the procedures to be followed in ensuring that the planning system recognises, protects and facilitates the traditional lifestyle of Gypsies and Travellers by identifying and making provision in development plans for their land and accommodation requirements.
	It is the Government's intention that the accommodation needs of Gypsy and Traveller communities should be part of the mainstream of the plan led system. The guidance contained in the circular should result in a greater proportion of this need being provided for on sites allocated in development plans, providing greater certainty both for Gypsies and Travellers and local residents and reducing the need for local authorities to enter into lengthy and expensive enforcement actions against unauthorised sites.
	The new circular also updates the definition of Gypsies and Travellers to reflect the fact that many stop travelling permanently or temporarily because of health reasons or caring responsibilities but still want to maintain their traditional lifestyle.
	The consultation will run until 18 March 2005. Copies of the consultation documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and are available to download from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's website.

Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant 2004–05

Lord Rooker: My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing the details of the successful bids under the second round of the Gypsy Site Refurbishment Grant for 2004–05. Under the first round, £4.82 million was allocated in April of this year, with a further £2.54 million now being paid in the second round.
	The existing network of over 300 local authority authorised sites represents a valuable resource for Gypsies and Travellers. With the aid of this grant, local authorities are able to ensure that Gypsies and Travellers have access to high quality accommodation and that the networks of sites continues to meet the needs of the Gypsy and Traveller community into the future.
	The successful bids are:
	The City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council (£10,425 for the Mary Street site).
	East Cambridgeshire District Council (£42,700 for the First Drove site).
	Herefordshire Council (£300,000 for the Grafton site).
	Manchester City Council (£1,157,250 for the Fairholme site).
	Shropshire County Council (£63,525 for the Craven Arms site).
	The London Borough of Southwark (£820,875 for the Springtide and Burnhill site).
	West Sussex County Council (£141,900 for the Horsgate site).

Children Act Report 2003

Lord Filkin: My right honourable friend the Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today placed copies of the Children Act Report for 2003 in the Libraries of both Houses. This statutory requirement, as part of the Children Act 1989 (s83(6)), is met each year by drawing together information relating to research, statistics and inspection findings, which are consolidated to create a report.

Parliamentary Questions and the Freedom of Information Act

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The following Statement was made today by my honourable friend Mr Christopher Leslie.
	Access rights to information held by public authorities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 come into force on 1 January 2005. The following guidance sets out procedures for dealing with complaints about the handling of requests for information. The guidance makes it clear that there should be no inconsistencies between the provision of information in answer to Parliamentary Questions and information given to citizens under the Freedom of Information Act.
	Where a Member is dissatisfied with the Answer to a Parliamentary Question, there are well established parliamentary routes that Members may follow, such as tabling further Questions; raising the issues on the Adjournment; or a complaint to the Public Administration Committee, which may seek to follow up the issue with Ministers. Alternatively, Members may write to the appropriate Minister expressing their concern and setting out the information that they are seeking. Such correspondence shall be treated by departments as a new request for information requiring a full internal review and fresh decision. The request will attract all the provisions and appeal mechanisms afforded by the Freedom of Information Act, including if necessary, an appeal to the Information Commissioner.
	Any investigation by the Information Commissioner will therefore be related to the correspondence to the Minister and not extend to the Answer to the Parliamentary Question or to any other parliamentary proceedings, which are protected by parliamentary privilege. In addition, the Cabinet Office plans to issue revised guidance to officials on drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions taking account of the Freedom of Information Act.

General Commissioners: Amalgamation of Divisions

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: On 17 December 2004, I made an order under Section 2(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 amalgamating a number of divisions in Middlesex, East Sussex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire with effect from 1 January 2005, as follows: Harrow, Uxbridge and Wembley Divisions are merged into North-West London Division; Lewes and Eastern Divisions are merged into East Sussex Division; Hertford and Stevenage, and Hitchin Divisions are merged into Hertford, Stevenage and Hitchin Division; North Witchford and Wisbech Divisions are merged into Wisbech Division; and Spalding and Stamford Divisions are merged into Spalding and Stamford Division.
	All the amalgamations were made at the request of the General Commissioners in all the divisions, with the aim of improving the organisational efficiency of the divisions concerned. I have placed a copy of the order amalgamating the divisions in the Libraries of both Houses.

National Physical Laboratory

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Patricia Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	In 1998, the DTI entered into a PFI arrangement with the contractor, Laser (Teddington II) Limited (Laser), to build and subsequently maintain new science facilities at the National Physical Laboratory at Teddington.
	During construction of the facilities, Laser encountered a number of technical difficulties that significantly delayed completion and increased costs to a level that threatened the project's viability. In July this year, Laser approached the department with a proposal that an agreed termination of the PFI project represented the best available option for resolving those difficulties.
	DTI has now agreed with Laser and their lenders to the termination of the PFI project on the following basis. The department has made a termination payment of £75 million, based on the principles of the termination provisions of the project agreement. That means that full ownership of and responsibility for the new facilities, which have an insurance value of £120 million, have been transferred back to DTI.
	Following the termination payment, net liabilities of £73 million on DTI's balance sheet will be extinguished, and the department will make significant cash savings from fees that would otherwise have been made in payment for the new facilities between now and 2023. This is an example of how the risk transfer principles of PFI arrangements can operate, with appropriate risks being ultimately transferred to the private sector to the benefit of the taxpayer.
	DTI intends, wherever possible, to put to competitive tender the construction work needed to complete the facilities. DTI has also exercised its right to step into, in place of Laser, the support services management agreement made between Laser and Serco Limited for the provision by Serco of support services at the site, thereby ensuring uninterrupted provision of those services.
	The DTI is confident that the arrangements will enable the outstanding work on the new facilities to be completed so that NPL can continue to deliver world-class science and vital support for innovation, consistent with value for money for the taxpayer.

Parliamentary Security Co-ordinator

Lord Brabazon of Tara: The Speaker of the House of Commons and I have appointed Mr Peter Mason as the Parliamentary Security Co-ordinator. As set out in the Second Report of the House Committee (Paper 196, Session 2003–04), the Security Co-ordinator will be expected, among other responsibilities, to oversee the project of implementing new security measures arising from the Joint Review, to improve co-ordination of security matters between the two Houses and advise on issues which need to be dealt with across the Estate as a whole, and to provide a focus for liaison with the Metropolitan Police and Security Service. The Security Co-ordinator will work with Black Rod and the Serjeant at Arms, who will continue to hold executive responsibility to ensure the security of their respective Houses. Mr Mason will be on secondment from the Security Service, and his appointment is for a period of two years from January.

Northern Ireland: Baton Rounds

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence (Mr Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	On 23 October 2002, I placed in the Library of the House details of the guidelines on the rules of engagement for the use of plastic baton rounds in Northern Ireland by the Armed Forces. We did this as an exceptional measure aimed at building confidence in Northern Ireland following a request from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
	The guidelines were updated in the light of a recommendation made by the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures and placed in the Library of the House on 15 May 2003.
	The guidance has been further updated to take account of lessons learned from training and operations and as part of our commitment to review baton round guidance in consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

Porton Down: The death of Ronald Maddison

Lord Bach: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ivor Caplin) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I wrote yesterday to the solicitors acting for the Maddison family apologising for the fact that Ministry of Supply employees at the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment at Porton Down Wiltshire proceeded with a test involving Ronald George Maddison on 6 May 1953, which led to his death. This was undertaken notwithstanding the fact that an identical test on 4 May 1953 resulted in an adverse blood test result in one serviceman.
	The Ministry of Defence has not received a formal claim for compensation from the next of kin of Mr Maddison. However, any claim for compensation from his family would be considered favourably on the basis of the negligence referred to above.
	The Ministry of Defence intends to challenge, by way of Judicial Review, the inquest verdict of unlawful killing.